P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,040
- 4,383
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #9,301
Israel claims that the doctrine of uti possidetis juris gives them the legal right to all of Palestine.
The problem is that the Mandate of Palestine had no borders.
The Mandate had no territory or borders. The territory was never annexed.
PALESTINE, UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, AND THE
BORDERS OF ISRAEL
Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to the relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute.
Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948.
BORDERS OF ISRAEL
Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to the relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute.
Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948.
The problem is that the Mandate of Palestine had no borders.
Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a "sacred trust of civilisation" to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]
en.wikipedia.org
League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia
The Mandate had no territory or borders. The territory was never annexed.
